Author: Howard Exner
Date: 09:24:06 07/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 1998 at 09:21:19, Komputer Korner wrote: >On July 29, 1998 at 15:33:14, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On July 29, 1998 at 08:34:35, Komputer Korner wrote: >> >>>On July 29, 1998 at 08:01:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>>Jeroen, you need Knut Neven's GIGANTIC BASE of 1.3 million games with less >>>>>than 4/10 ths of 1 % doubles. OK, I'll jump in on this suggestion of yours and use your own words. Why use the work of Knut Neven? Since he is not a GM his efforts in comparison "will not even come close" to those of Anand's. The above statement is quite unfair and out of place don't you think? That is how I read your comments about Jeroen. It has 3 games of 11.d5 It is hellishly complicated >>>>>but 11.d5 looks very good for white. It seems as if Anand did not properly >>>>>prepare for Rebel 10. >>>> >>>>Jeroen doesn't work that way. He prefers to do it the hard way by typing move >>>>by move to the Rebel book instead of extracting an opening book from a large >>>>database. This because the result is simply better. >>>> >>>>>Super GM's still do not have the proper respectfor micros! >>>> >>>>How do you know? >>>> > > > >>> >>>The super GMs know that the micros have't done the opening homework. This is >>>because the micros can't as of yet. There is no automated opening prep in the >>>micro coding. Thus Jeroen has to do it all. Since Jeroen is not a GM or strong >>>IM, he can't do as good a job as a player like Anand. >> >>Opening prep is not the equivalent of playing an over the board game. >>Given adequate time and resources a strong player like Jeroen is capable >>of unravelling complex opening systems as well as other chess positions. >>Think for a moment about correspondence chess players and the deep >>games they come up with. More than a few opening discoveries have been >>attributted to correspondence games. Should they be rejected because of >>a non-GM over the board rating? >> >>Does Anand do all of his opening prep himself or does he share >>this task with his seconds? >> >>Today Jeroen and anyone owning today's software can utilize these >>programs to see more deeply into games. We punch in a series of moves, use >>takeback, keep notes. Even I had the audacity to post awhile back that in >>game #7 Anand's 24th move, Bd2 should be reconsidered as not possibly >>best here. Instead I suggested Bg4, followed by a plan of putting >>the dark squared bishop on b2 and his remaining rook on g1 as a plan >>that might cause Rebel 10 more difficulty. > >You are forgetting that the GMs use the same tools that you do. Kasparov has 2 >notebooks ( maybe more by now) running chess programs 24 hours a day searching >for novelties and a team of assistants to give him the results of their >analyzing. Indeed, they do have lots of resources. You mention Anand's team of assistants. Are they all GM's? >The world correspondence champion has an over the board (OTB) rating >of 2345 FIDE. I watched him play in the recent Canadian Open Championship (OTB >play). He is definitely no Kasparov. I have also watched other correspondence >GMs play OTB chess. They are definitely not at the level of real OTB GMs. That was the point I made also, that their OTB skill lags behind a GM, yet they are huge contributers to opening theory. >So >given the same amount of time to prepare openings with the same tools (chess >programs), which person would you hire as your openings prep person, Anand or >Noomen? Of course, given equal time and resources, I'd say the stronger chess player has the edge. My point was not to dismiss analysis of others simply because they lack the title of GM. >I am in no way judging Jeroen's competence. OK this is the real point for me. It looked like you were making the point that because an individual is not a GM that somehow they can't partake in meaningful analysis. You even said recently on rgcc something to the effect that because you, KK, are not a GM that you should not engage in an analysis debate. I wanted to express my view on that and so chose this thread for doing so. >He probably is worth the >money that Ed is paying him. However you won't convince any reader of this club >that he can prepare openings as well as Anand or any other GM for that matter. Nice try. Where did I make that assertion? >I rest my case your honour. Is that "your honour" in that you think of me as wise or "your honour" in the meaning, "ha ha smartypants, I'm right and you're wrong"? :) By the way, I know Knut Neven. I have no doubt at all that his database is excellent. >-- >Komputer Korner
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.